Matching Talent and Jobs

Programmed to under-perform? This is how some
healthcare managers may feel when they go home after a typical day at work,
according to a recent white paper ‘What Does Being in Over Your Head Look
Like’. In reality, the average healthcare organisation creates leadership
alignment (the right people in the right roles) approximately 55 percent of the
time. Realistic expectations for leadership appointment should target 85
percent alignment, by using a structured approach to determining their future
leaders. The difference of having the right leaders in place can show as much
as a 75 percent increase in operational performance over time.

There are several common appointment mistakes that may lead to
sub-optimal performance, where newly appointed healthcare leaders and managers
whose talents are not best matched to a new role, can end up in over their
heads.

The easiest way to describe the condition is where a department’s
complexity (degree of difficulty) exceeds the threshold at which a manager has
higher odds of success (typically above a 50 percent rate). There are different
levels of ability. For a ‘C’ level ability, this is virtually any management job,
since their chances of success are at best just 40 percent (in the lowest
complexity positions). The decision to appoint a ‘C’ level manager to high
positions is justified only when challenges are easily managed, or if the
manager has an exceptional ability to manage day-to-day operations.

How about ‘B’ level managers? As cited by Thomas J. DeLong and
Vineeta Vijayaraghavan in their 2003 ‘Harvard Business Review Article’, ‘Let’s
hear it for B players’, managers at the ‘B’ level are solid, consistent
performers. They are competent, experienced, consistent and loyal.

These managers make up the backbone of any organisation, and
typically account for between 50 percent and 55 percent of executives. In our
research, the bulk of healthcare IT managers are usually at the ‘B’ level. For
‘B’ level leadership talent, the ability to manage low and medium complexity
tasks produces favourable results, respectively, 75 percent and 60 percent of
the time (see Figure 1). The only cases with low odds of success (and are ‘in
over their heads’) is when they are appointed to complex assignments or
departments, accompanied by a high degree of difficulty. It is here that the chances
of success dip to 45 percent. This is not to say that they cannot be
successful; it is just less likely. If a decision is made to appoint ‘B’ level
IT managers to such a level of complexity, it is crucial for CIOs to ensure
that they ‘over achievers.

Other attributes of “B” level leaders are:

They are talented but not usually as ambitious or driven;

They are interested in advancement but not at all costs or a steep
price;

While they may work hard, they prioritise “life-work” balance to
work 50 hours per week instead of 80 or more;

They are usually excellent team players avoiding the spotlight of
self promotion;

They may have been “A” level performers at one time and have
dialled back their career focus due to outside – personal priorities or
possibly “throttling” down to semi-retirement;

They have longer tenures in organisations because they are less
likely to leap from job to job to fast track or advance their careers, or

They contain a significant amount of an organisation’s
intellectual capital due to their experience and tenure levelling.

In such a light, there are seven typical appointment mistakes
which organisations make:

Appointing a “B” level ability person to a high degree of
difficulty management role based upon their tenure period or technical competency (clinicalexpertise); the ability to lead othersdoes not correlate with either. Oddsof success = 45 percent.

Appointing a lower level “supervisor” into a manager position in a bottom quartile
department out of convenience. They are usually unsuccessful because of their
lack of manager experience. They tend to be part of the previous culture and
are less likely to act on the low performers (or make tough decisions). Odds of
success = < 20 percent.

Failure to recognise that a high degree of difficulty department in the bottom quartile
will require a ‘turnaround’ specialist used to making tough decisions quickly,
with responsibility to stakeholders outweighing personal interests. Most ‘B’
level managers do well in maintenance roles. Odds of success = < 20 percent.

Waiting too long to act and failing to set hard (measurable) performance
targets and milestones for the first year. If new managers fail to immediately make
heavy-lifting decisions (especially in terms of dealing with negative,
disruptive, poor performers), turnarounds take longer, are usually more painful
and have a lower overall success rate. Odds of success = < 20 percent.

Not taking due account of leadership talent or ability. Assigning a ‘C’ or ‘D’ level
leader in any role has low odds of success: average 30 percent for a ‘C’ player
and 15 percent for a ‘D’.

Low acceptance rate of a new leader/manager by the staff because of an ‘old
school’ mindset about the importance of prior tenure in a particular department.
It can be extremely difficult for some people to handle this situation long
enough to persevere. Odds of success = < 33 percent.

Competency Alignment: Sometimes, even the most talented leaders (‘A’ players)
can be out of alignment technically, with regard to business models, culturally/behaviourally
or in terms of pure maturity or experience. Odds of success = < 33 percent.

Numerous
consultants promote the hiring of only ‘A’ players to leadership and/or total employee
positions. If less than .01 percent of healthcare organisations can achieve this
level of human capital recruitment, hiring and appointment, how realistic is it
as an aspiration? The last organisation that tried to create a culture of all
‘A’ players was Enron.

Another
name for this business practice is ‘Top Grading’, where selection only screens
for the best talents, while the performance management practices cut a
percentage of the total employment base (GE is famous for cutting 10 percent of
its bottom performers every year).

Such
a philosophy will simply not work at healthcare organisations. In the final analysis,
the healthcare business, like others, is a team sport.